On Catholicism!

[Eilonnwy]

I was raised in an atheist family and didn't discover Christianity until my mid 20's. I have been an atheist more than once. I've also been flavours in between. I've said many times that Christianity is an aim and not a destination. You can aim to be like Christ, but there is no 'Christian' as in a person who is like Christ. Only people who have stated that they aspire to be so. There is no magic line to cross that makes you suddenly Christ like.

I didn't know you used to be an atheist. While I hate indoctrination, it makes the fact that a person believes more understandable. And while I think it's ideal for people not to be indoctrinated and chose their religion as an adult, there's still a part of me that thinks they should know better and not end up in a religion. However, I till respect your right to believe.

Show me where I've said that people aren't Christians because they don't follow my interpretations (not that I don't believe you). And are you using Kyu's definition of the fallacy or the one I quote above?

Can I ask you the same question as I asked Giff? Did you every actually make a decision to be a Christian, or are you like you say, not 1st generation?

If you were indoctrinated, that doesn't sound like you chose to believe at all. That fails God's requirement for all his followers in my understanding, and that's something I have to stay firm on. Some things I don't understand at all yet accept that Christianity fits the description. I'd include in that some Christians interpretation on homosexuality and the role of women in the church. Creationism and literalists. Even though I consider some of these standpoints repulsive I still can accept that at the same time people can be wanting to follow Christ.

See in this respect, I can understand that you weren't actually a Christian, even though you held position in a Catholic Church. I hope you can understand that. I come from a very anti Catholic position and try since about 3 years ago to be open and fair. I may not achieve that but this is my aim. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

You say that certain things go against Christianity that Catholics do which makes then non Christian. I would say that's your interpretation because those things that you say go against Christ others would argue that they don't. The way I view the fallacy is to say someone is not part of something, in this case Christianity based on your conception of what being Christian is. Christianity has one requirement (believing in Jesus), just like beign a Scotsman does (Being a Scottish citizen), everthing else is inconsequential to the label.

You are correct, I never chose Christianity. As soon was given the option to chose, I rebeled. But that doesn't mean I never truly believed, it doesn't mean I don't know the religion. Essentially my deconversion was simply from realizing I had the choice to really question the faith and when I did it fell apart and I could never go back. However that doesn't mean I was never Christian. If I held onto those beliefs I would still profress Christianity. How can the religion that founded Christianity be anything but Christian? This is also why I think you should never be indoctrinated because how many people believe in something where they are not allowed to think for themselves? What would they believe if they were?

I understand why you don't think I was ever a Christian, that's your opinion but not a matter of fact. The fact is I was baptised into the Catholic religion and raised on those beliefs. So I was a Christian. Anytime you put forth your own opinion to decide that someone was or is not the label they put on themselves, you are committing a fallacy. If a someone claims to be what they were, then that's what they were. I accept that you say you were an atheist and I'm not going to challenge it. I told Edward that I don't think he was every really an atheist, but I also fully admitted in that same post that I was making that fallacy.

I really don't care if you are anti-Catholic, as long as you recognize they are Christian. If you actually want to know what I specifically believed as a Catholic I'd be happy to share.

A person can know everything there is to know about a religion, but without actually changing your life in response you can be as ignorant as someone who knows nothing at all. That statement, as you'll probably know, is biblical of course.

That essentially is saying that you can't know facts. It makes the assumption that if you learn about a religion you must be persuaded about it. I've learned about the Greek religion and not changed my life in response, I was simply enriching my knowledge of what other people believed. I can understand why people believe things and still not believe it. I think the statement also assumes people should be positively changed by a religion. I think the opposite can happen. As I investigated Catholicism and Christianity I was repulsed by it.

I have the utmost respect for atheists. I think it's a very honest position to take, and atheists are possibly more open to understanding than almost any other philosophical position.

Honestly, you didn't give that impression when you first came here. But I think you've been better about that recently, hence I've been responding to you more.